A response to, Super Trawler Desperately Seeking Fish Despite Ban
Mr Peter McGlone
Director
Tasmanian Conservation Trust
191-193 Liverpool St
HOBART TAS 7000
Dear Mr McGlone.
I refer to your media release, “Super trawler desperately seeking fish despite ban”, issued today, 23 January 2013 ( TT, below, here ).
I was extremely disappointed to read the comments made on behalf of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust by Marine Campaigner Jon Bryan, which incorrectly asserted that AFMA has developed a transhipment proposal to “ignore Minister Burke’s concerns about the small pelagic fishery” and “which is clearly aimed at undermining an important government decision to keep super trawlers such as the Abel Tasman out of Australian waters”.
As you know, Mr Bryan is a member of the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group which provides important advice to AFMA about scientific stock assessments. Stakeholders are, of course, entitled to their opinions and we value the Tasmanian Conservation Trust’s input into our consultation processes.
However, Mr Bryan’s comment is wrong, intentionally misleading and damaging to AFMA’s reputation. As Mr Bryan is aware, AFMA has not developed any proposal to allow transhipment. An application from a fishing company for authorisation to tranship has been received by AFMA and is being considered. AFMA has not expressed any views on the proposal and no decision has yet been made. As is usual practice with such applications, AFMA has begun a comprehensive process of consultation with industry and stakeholders.
The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity is a fundamental consideration of AFMA’s decision making and in this respect AFMA will have regard to any information provided to it by Minister Burke. I therefore refute the suggestion that AFMA is in any way ignoring Ministerial concerns or attempting to undermine government decisions in any way. To suggest this is harmful and irresponsible.
I have known and worked with Mr Bryan for over ten years and am disappointed by these comments. I contacted Mr Bryan immediately after the media release was issued to offer him the opportunity to retract his comments, but he declined.
I now formally ask for the Tasmanian Conservation Trust to retract these comments.
Please contact me on 02 6225 5555 if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Yours sincerely,
Dr James Findlay
Chief Executive Officer
Show Comments
Comments (8)
Can you please tell me Dr Findlay what is AFMA’s position on state and federal Governments inability to properly monitor fisheries in Australia.
For example, only last October four trawlers were sighted at night in Tasmanian waters at Coles Bay very close to shore, this was reported to authorities and no action was taken. This was illegal action by fishing companies. After this pillage recreational fishermen could not catch any flathead in this shallow bay at all. Where would this Coles Bay catch have been taken to Dr Findlay - maybe the nearest fish processing plant for food for salmon farms?
Without proper policing, monitoring and enforcement of Australian fisheries, AFMA’s role is meaningless!
High dudgeon towards the TCT indeed!
Emma, I disagree that governments have an inability to properly monitor fisheries in Australia.
At AFMA we have compulsory GPS tracking on all boats that we manage (i.e. we know exactly where every Commonwealth fishing boat is 24/7/365), AFMA observers on board a high percentage of fishing trips and fisheries compliance officers doing inspections at sea and at port as well as collecting intelligence data and conducting monitoring and surveillance operations (including surveillance of boats by aircraft). We also have government cameras fitted to boats in a number of fisheries so we can monitor fishing operations.
I have checked our records and AFMA did not receive the reports that you mention. As AFMA manages Commonwealth fisheries only, the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment or Tasmania Police may be the relevant authorities in your example.
Dr James Findlay, CEO
Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Clearly, Seafish Tasmania’s latest proposal seeks to by pass any reviews set up by Minister Burke and Minister Ludwig. AFMA would be seen to be contemptuous of the reviews and the two year moratorium if Seafish Tasmania is allowed to use the Margiris aka Abel Tasman as a mother ship. All the issues of by catch, danger to seals and dolphins, localised depletion, a cost benefit analysis and all the other matters must be first considered.
A significant component of the recreation fishery are the small pelagic fish, it is a multi billion dollar industry when taking into account all the industries which support recreation fishers; yet, recreation fishers are hardly represented on the SPFRAG. The one representative does a fabulous job, but his voice is subdued by the greater number of commercial fishery representatives. I gather that the conservation member and fishers representative are in agreement often; they represent a far greater community than do the commercial fisher representatives. Consequently, when the rec fishers and conservation representatives officially indicate they do not agree with the deliberations of SPFRAG, then they should be given a greater priority than has been the case in the past.
Lots of monitoring of Stockholm Syndrome going on there Dr Findlay, wwwoooooo I’m impressed!
#3 All the issues have been considered and answered but you and many others don’t like and won’t accept the answers.
You could say a significant component of commercial fisheries are small pelagic fish. 30,000 tonnes of sardines are caught in SA each year and don’t seem to affect the 4000 odd tonne of tuna caught. I think you’re just another recreational fisherman who doesn’t like commercial fishing. You see these boats as greedy people taking your fish.(see #1) As far as numbers represented go, commercial fishermen provide seafood for millions of people who don’t go fishing.
The quota for the Abel Tasman is 18,000 tonnes or as some put it to make it sound larger 18 million kilos. That would make it well under 1 kg per person per year of an abundant low value fish. How much fish do you eat each year Kieth. And do you have any by-catch or only ever catch the type of fish you’re after.
I thought you’d want to know the massive Super Trawler FV Abel Tasman has just launched a serious new bid to side-step its ban and start operating in Australia’s waters! They could be fishing by stealth very soon unless we take action before this Monday. It’s amazing that they think they can get away with this, but if enough of us speak out we can, once again, stop this monster fishing vessel.
The 142 metre long Super Trawler that we all stopped last year has just proposed a new way to fish off our coastline. It’s called ‘transshipment at sea’. This basically means that the Super Trawler would be used as a giant mother-ship, acting as a floating freezer with a fleet of smaller trawlers buzzing around it cleaning out the ocean. Instead of using its own nets, the Super Trawler just gets fed fish caught by the smaller trawlers for freezing.
Whatever they want to call it, this proposal is just a ploy to introduce a super trawler and industrial scale fishing into the small pelagic fishery. It will do nothing to reduce the risks to our marine life;
• Local areas depleted of marine life;
• High risks to dolphins and seals being caught and killed as by-catch;
• Old data supporting questionable science.
Please send an email now:
http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/super-trawler-by-stealth
If approved, operations would proceed before the Expert Panel appointed by Environment Minister Tony Burke even begins to consider the potential environmental impacts of a super trawler operating in this fishery.
The Government’s very short public comment deadline is this Monday 28th January 2013. If you don’t want this proposal for ‘transhipment at sea’ to go ahead then please take a few minutes to send the email on our web site.
Add your own comments, and tell the Minister to stand firm and protect Australia’s fisheries from the ravages of super trawlers.
The last thing our oceans need now is a super trawler by stealth.
Thanks for your dedication to defending our marine life.
David
David Mackenzie
Save Our Marine Life
http://www.SaveOurMarineLife.org.au
PS – People power is vital to stopping the Super Trawler. Please let your friends know.
Mikey, you are right in saying that when I go fishing I do catch species I’m not targeting. But I practice catch and release; I normally only take one or two of the fish targeted home to eat, the rest are released to continue living. There is a 100% release rate for the non targeted species. Once netted by a trawler a huge proportion, if not all fish netted die.
On many occasions Mikey I have said that we support the small commercial fishers; they are not trying to railroad greedy non-viable propositions onto the extended fishing community.
It is the proposition of using a super trawler for fishing, or being used as a mother ship that recreation fishers are objecting too.
You are continually trying to discredit recreation fishers by bringing in red herrings.
Mikey, you say all the issues have been answered, does that mean that the research promised by Minister Burke has been completed?
Meanwhile millions of containers of “krill-based cures” are being sold in Australia every year.
Where’s the krill coming from?